For all of those who are down voting the nope, read the instructions on how to apply in the post. You all failed that trick test teachers handed out in grade school, where if you actually read the instructions, it tells you to put your name on the paper and put down your pencil without trying to answer any of the questions on the test, because the test is “do you pay attention to shit” not “do you know the answers”.

Model (USA) Rule of Evidence 407: Subsequent remedial measures are not admissible as evidence to prove negligence, culpable conduct, a defect in a product or its design, or a need for a warning or instruction.

But the court may admit this evidence for another purpose, such as impeachment or — if disputed — proving ownership, control, or the feasibility of precautionary measures

EDIT: I’m not looking up the contextualing comments that accompany the rule, but I will share what I remember from law school many years ago: this rule exists for public safety. You don’t want to penalize fixing a dangerous situation, regardless of the facts of any specific case.

Biden is not even in the same league of asshattery as Pelosi and Feinstein, despite a long career and being in the Executive twice. I’ll never forget Pelosi talking down to a high school student who asked her a question about economic equity—I don’t remember the kid’s question, but her response is seared into my brain. She got pissy and said “America is a capitalist country” like capitalism was handed down from god on high or enshrined in the Constitution. It was contemptuously delivered, to a degree as bad as I once heard Rick Santorum speak to a student who asked him about LGBTQ rights.

Feinstein was a regressive in a lot of ways, perhaps she escaped being labeled a DINO because her votes were more important than her sometimes asinine rhetoric.

I suspect that such decisions are being driven by fear of tort liability WAY more than any religious or social beliefs of the medical practitioners. I’m not trying to argue in favor of denying women needed medical treatment in any way, shape, or form—it’s just that my lawyer senses are tingling, and I wonder if this is an area where Doctors are overall more likely to get sued if they offer the treatment than deny the treatment. Any MDs in here want to offer a more informed opinion of what the F is going on with such denial of care situations?

Why the fuck is it Elizabeth Warren speaking up and the Executive is totally mum? My GOP dad thinks Muskovite fucked up majorly, caused Ukrainians to die, and should be punished. Not that he’s a bellwether, but if he thinks it was wrong, many other GOP folks do as well. Fuck billionaires playing demigods. Warren speaking up is a GOP poison pill and a guaranteed “that’s what the rich are allowed to do, frail mortal!” moment where nothing fucking happens. EDIT: I love Warren. But she gets as much traction as a jr house member.

Excellent. Now I know that there are different classes of heat pump. Mine is not for prolonged crazy-low temps, others are. Thank you.

You know how they seal kids teeth, and insurance covers it? It basically keeps kids from getting cavities until the sealant eventually wears off. Well, they could put the same sealant on adults. But they don’t.

The Logan Act deals with private citizens negotiating with foreign governments. Unless he fucked with Starlink at the direct request of the Russian gov't, I don't see how the Logan Act applies. EDIT: apparently he did it after speaking with Russian government officials. So never mind, Logan Act is absolutely implicated.

Can't we just agree that religions that teach women are subservient to men should be opposed? A concept of religious freedom that gives parents/fathers the right to compel observance on their children under threat of beatings or death is a fucked up sense of freedom. I don't blame France for trying to protect their secular society by banning religiously-derived garb in public schools - removing the power of parents to dictate such garb gives kids a chance early on to make up their own mind - do they like the freedom from family-mandated othering they experience at school, or do they like displaying that they are subserviant to men when compelled by their family?

Fucking hate this. There is a local public meeting that starts with a prayer to the Evangelical God in Jesus’s name that I’m forced to attend because of my job. I hate being essentially compelled to participate in prayer. The SCOTUS precedent supporting this is 100000000% Christian bias.

Don’t disparage the Commodore 64. It was actually a TI-99/4a.

The fundamentalist’s lack of a sense of humor is not my problem.